Opinion/Hit Piece "Is Kyrsten Sinema bad for bisexuals?" by GatitoMalo in Bisexuals

[–]GatitoMalo[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is USA politics, so I apologize beforehand.

Yes because, as we all know, politics and sexuality go hand-in-hand. Being bisexual is being an "unreliable" centrist? (Centrism is of course, reliably centrist.) Voting is per-ordained at the same time orientation is determined? (Or sex for that matter.) How is being bisexual a "rebuke to Trumpism?" (Along that line of reasoning, gay men must vote for Joe Biden--or they're not homosexual?)

Gee, I suppose if you don't favor Trump, go sleep with both sexes. That'll show him. Have sex with men and women: defeat Trump.

The "opinion" (read: hit piece--there's some piece of legislation that Sinema is a linchpin in) author links to Twitter about how Sinema can't "make up her mind."

Long, hard look in the mirror, Lux Alptraum. Trying to 'dispel bisexual stereotypes' whilst spewing them.

When you’re just too big to be canceled for “transphobia” by Chunkeeguy in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I get your point now. Perhaps the woke crowd doesn't know what do with him because of how provocative he already is. Provoke the provocateur, and all that?

When you’re just too big to be canceled for “transphobia” by Chunkeeguy in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Don't take the bait from Lil Nas X. All he does is troll. I don't care if it happened or not, he's aiming to get a rise out of people, and he's succeeding because we let him.

Tired of bisexuals being expected to be open to dating trans people by default because we like both biological males and females by UnapologeticMisandry in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agree on the mentally unwell part. We often find physically fit people to be more desirable, why not mental fitness? Maybe that's saying the quiet parts out loud, but it is true.

You're picking apart the male and female, with hair and mastectomies, etc. in the same way that trans people try and pick apart the sexes. This strikes me as the same nature of argument.

If I were capable of taking a man and making him indiscernibly anatomically, psychologically female, then our hitherto man could be an erotic target for other, heterosexual men. Perhaps if the secret were revealed, then the attraction would vanish--and I think this is the salient part of the conversation. Not one well had with LGB folk--because of the obvious emphasis on sex--but is it not just the discerned sex, but other conceptualizations we have of people that make them appealing or not, to us? Have any of us beyond our teenage years broken up a relationship with the correct sex for us, why?

I think we have to concede this point to the transgender crowd. Were the medical technology sufficient...

However, that is not where we are. We can't have this argument on the basis of what-ifs? So, I agree with you practically, but not philosophically. It seems to me you're making philosophical points, and you're stuck here because we can't all agree on the painfully obvious fact that it is not just the sex of a person that strikes our desire, or or dislike.

Please, do not get me wrong. I think gender ideology is complete horseshit. I'm not interested in people because of some gendered soul they have. It's not a religious interaction. Yet, can you see how they may rightfully be accusing the trans detractors of genital fetishism? Because we can't say out loud that we like fit people, or tall people, or women with long, curly brown hair who know how to turn a wrench, drive trucks, and ain't afraid of having a bit of dirt and grease on their face? Okay, oddly specific example... but damn...


I was thinking of the criticism I could get for this post, and you're right. That's a "bisexual thing to say." So, let's deal with that.

Perhaps this is where we missed the mark. Maybe bisexuality isn't an interest in both sexes, where heterosexuality and homosexuality is an interest in just one. Perhaps they're entirely different experiences and we can't put our fingers on it. Maybe the monosexuality of heterosexuals is different from the monosexuality of homosexuals, which is different from the plurisexuality of bisexuals. Each being its own thing, the sexes not regarded. We think we're just dealing with our sex, their sex, but we've actually got two, maybe three very different phenomena and we can't see it. It's these endless fights between those that like both sexes and those that like their same sex, in particular, that's leading me to this intuition.

I maintain that while bisexuals and homosexuals have same-sex attraction in common, they are both very different. Bisexuals have opposite-sex interests. Homosexuals do not, and this is what makes them special. I don't understand homosexuals as people with same-sex attraction. I understand homosexuals as people lacking opposite-sex attraction.

Tired of bisexuals being expected to be open to dating trans people by default because we like both biological males and females by UnapologeticMisandry in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Men don't do it because of the awful social stigma, but I get the impression that some bisexual-identifying women have the label because of how (shitty) heterosexuality works? It somehow increases their sexual capital, no different than a push-up bra.

Tired of bisexuals being expected to be open to dating trans people by default because we like both biological males and females by UnapologeticMisandry in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I've had this experience, many times. I find a feminine man or a masculine woman striking, but then it clicks that they're not as such. They're an artificially masculinized woman, or a feminized man, respectively. Mammalian brain catches up with the reptile one, but a visceral, reptilian disappointment--as established by the higher-order functions--does set in. I don't want to date mental disorder. I'm not looking for complicated. I want peace. I've got my own issues to deal with, I don't need other people's.

Tired of bisexuals being expected to be open to dating trans people by default because we like both biological males and females by UnapologeticMisandry in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Many of these women claim attraction to men and not women, suggesting that they are straight,

I'm with RC. I think there is a class of women out there who, for reasons I do not want to get into, nor do I think that conversation would be fruitful, make the mammalian-brain volitional choice to choose other women as partners, in the stead of men. Their reptilian brains direct them towards the men.

This is their choice, and I respect it. However, it is my purview to recognize the nature of their interest in the sexes. People are free to say what they want about themselves, but I do not have to accept their claims, and I do judge them on this.

If a woman introduces herself to me as a heterosexual, but a "political lesbian," then such a woman has my respect. It is the misdirection, misrepresentation that her partnering with other women is due to a physiological compulsion--this draws my extreme ire.

I also do not maintain that political lesbians are necessarily homosexual or bisexual. (These are their words, by the way.)

Bisexual institute leader slammed for absurd claim ‘pansexuality gave us conversion therapy’ by Chunkeeguy in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

is there really a way in which the "pansexual" identifier could have led to conversion therapy...?

The thought process is lost on me, but I'd love to hear it.

What I can come up with is predicated on the assumption that bisexuality is "good, and natural." I'm not making a claim to the contrary here, just trying to follow his reasoning. It is the "other" that is bad, and unnatural, and that "other" implicates bisexuality, whilst the "other" is worthy of conversion therapy.

I think this may be a conflation of technical and social contexts, which I just replied to you about in a different thread.

It can't be that an ID as pan, as opposed to an ID as bi, caused the "conversion therapy." It has to be the phenomena driving those identifications. This has got to be the point; quite staunch on this. The letters "P A N" didn't upset people.

Tired of bisexuals being expected to be open to dating trans people by default because we like both biological males and females by UnapologeticMisandry in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think I have anything new to bring to the table on GAMP.

What I was trying to point out is how we have LGB, and that if we insist that all sexual phenomena must be categorized only as one of those three letters, then things that are not technically LGB will go around walking and talking as LGB. I think it's obvious this is happening.

To me, in a technical, sex research context, that matters. That kind of detail is important there. There's another context, however:

I must admit, that you could, by example, get two men who I wouldn't consider to be bisexual or homosexual (technical context,) in a relationship with each other. A pair of exclusive (meaning, the entirety of their sexuality) furries is a good instance. They're not interested in adult humans, they're interested in anthropomorphic animals. It was their peculiar sexuality that brought them together, but a same-sex relationship is a same-sex relationship, regardless of etiology. The discrimination they're going to face isn't coming from the fact that they're furries. It is unlikely that any other person would be privy to this, if they keep their private life private, but if they go out to a fancy dinner together (social context,) then everyone will know they're in a relationship.

Of course I'm not going to make an absurd demand that only classically homosexual men can enjoy a nice restaurant, and just because the two furries have a (probably) wildly different etiology that they cannot benefit from the gay rights movement.

There is still a line between the two groups. I guess I've got my underwear in a bunch because I see people running around understanding themselves as classically bisexual, for instance, when their same-sex interest is a paraphilic one. That irks my pedantry. That isn't meant to try and--sorry for the word--invalidate anyone. Love is love, as we say.

The question I have is: does the line matter? (I think it does, somehow.) And where to place it? In a technical context, yes, absolutely, it matters. In a social one? I do not know, I cannot decide. The answer can even be entirely self-serving to the paraphiles. They get to do what they want to do because of norms around human sexuality--because of the gay rights movement--if they're in the West, at least. You can have a furry convention and not get raided by the morality police. As we are seeing though, LGB acceptance, at least in the USA, is very much on the decline because of the trans phenomena, which is largely driven by autogynephiles; paraphilia.

So there's the obvious concern that classically LGB people should have.

The way I've been approaching it is that most people are bereft of the technical context, and I think they suffer for that lack of understanding. Instead, they focus on the social context, not even knowing that there is this, at least as I put it, this entirely different world out there.

In incredibly rare instances, you have people approaching the topic from the technical context, where they want their technical sexual identity to be their social identity. Some AGP are like this, for instance. They know what's up, and they want to be understood as AGP. E.g. Debbie Hayton. They don't want to be understood as L, G, or B. They're AGP, they know they're AGP, and they want you to know they're AGP. I'm onboard with this. Or, I posted a (different) video from her the other day, Jillian Keenan--an exclusive masochist. Her interest in men and women is entirely paraphilic, and she goes into depth talking about this. I think Keenan got the idea from Charles Moser (a sex researcher--not one I hold in high regard, by the way) to add a Y axis to Kinsey. So 0-6 on x-axis (opposite to same-sex), and 0-6 on y-axis (sex as the erotic locus to paraphilia.) She is 3,6 on her scale: both sexes, equally, only paraphilia.

These sorts of people I don't find as a threat to the gay rights movement, nor its legacy. However, less-developed people, I absolutely do.

So there's this existential dilemma that some people face, or are at least mildly aware of. Going back to our two furries, if someone asks of one of them: sexual orientation? That's a damn complicated answer now. Do they say furry, or do they say gay? Does it depend on the context? Is the fool's choice in single-indicator measures? Can we combine the two contexts? I think the technical context is always more concise, so this is something I favor.

Yet, the technical context, I don't think, should deprive a person of the benefits that are available in the social context. I'm looking for the right moral and ethical blend here (again, combinatorial) and having a tough time with it. Thoughts, even half-formed ones?

Good to see you again, and how are life things?

Gender ideology is religion. by GatitoMalo in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A woman of science, I see.

This is where I got mired, because I can quantitatively and qualitatively test for autogynephilia using Kurt Freund's technique, such that I didn't see the forest for the trees.

Gender ideology is religion. by GatitoMalo in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, just when I thought I couldn't "peak-trans" any more, I realize that everything revolving around gender ideology are things that we've all seen before. It's not new. Were they worshiping a deity, then we'd all have twigged a lot sooner.

It's fascinating though, we're watching the development of a novel, serious religion in real-time. One that has real proponents, and real power. I assumed this sort of thing only happened in history.

There's no figurehead yet, like a Jesus Christ, or a Muhammad.

The world's first online, crowd-sourced religion (or at least one of any note.)

Tired of bisexuals being expected to be open to dating trans people by default because we like both biological males and females by UnapologeticMisandry in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I hate that being sexually attracted to a fetish is being conflated with a natural sexual attraction to regular old women and men. In my opinion, if you are sexually attracted to trans people, you are dealing with a fetish of some kind, not a traditional sexual orientation

In sex research, one of the (sometimes recognized) criteria for heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual is phenotypically normal, or, in common parlance: men and women. Not trans.

Miss the mark entirely on phenotypicality, and you're something else--not straight, not gay, nor bi.

There's concise language available, if you want to get technical, which I encourage.

Many people who want to date trans, especially men interested in trans women, can have a bisexual identity. This is a fault of only having three categories--as above--to stuff complex phenomena into. When they say bisexual, they mean male and female characteristics in the same person. Not men and women. Oft, you're looking at an interest in women, and trans women. That's different than a classical understanding of bisexuality, which I take. So: not bisexual.

So there's the problem, in a nutshell. It is more or less about sexual identity. OP, I'm with you.

But we can't sit on our high horse and insist that all of human sexuality's salient dimensions can be reduced to our sex, and their sex, because we're just reinforcing this hell that we find ourselves in. I'm just as frustrated with this proliferation of sexual identities as everyone else is. For me, the reason isn't the multitudes of identities, but how they miss the mark, and ultimately skirt around the real issues.

I'm confident none of this will be resolved by sticking with the categories that we've found ourselves reserved to. If we reject that hitherto unaccounted for sexual margins exist, then we are no better than those that rejected (and reject) homosexuality as a real phenomena.

Ghandi said that: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. He was wrong. First, they deny you even exist.

We don't have to like those phenomena--nor do they have to be ethical, moral, or legal--for us to point at them and say: aha!

If all the gyneandromorphophile has to categorize himself is gay, straight, and bisexual, well, then, there you go. Suffer the consequences if you're over-committed to the three categories.

We let people declare their politics, or their religion--any way they like. But, if somebody claims a unique sexuality, everyone looses their goddamned minds. Why? This question drives me nuts. And it's driving those people on the margins to frequently identify as bisexual, because it is the only thing that is afforded to them. By you. I'm looking at you.

How about kiss my FAT ASS instead by Hannibalboy93 in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, it's not a joke, but you're right, I did omit rape. Understand it as volitional erections, that was the intent.

Of course manual stimulation of erogenous zones, not consented to, by other people can provoke an erection. We all know this. I shouldn't have to say it.

What kind of woke-style nonsense is this though? A person (me) didn't say every exact phrase they were meant to, in the proper order, and there wasn't enough self-abasement. Clearly they have it out for this group, or that group!

How about kiss my FAT ASS instead by Hannibalboy93 in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 9 insightful - 6 fun9 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I absolutely have a validated psycho-physiological test for "queerness." It only works in men, but it's very simple. Do their dicks get hard? Yes? Then, sexual interest. Men don't get an erection for things that are uninteresting to them. Women prove to be more complicated, physiologically. Frustrating creatures, those women.

So, yeah, "purity test?" got that. It's (not) hard.


WTF I love Contrapoints now by justagaydude123 in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Who would trust these “queer” men with their children? by Chunkeeguy in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Jack Turban is not a trivial character in this mess.

New season of 'Sex Education' - a.k.a. spicy straight girl won't date a straight guy, because he's not 'queer' (whatever that means anymore...) by DickFreeBacon in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 11 insightful - 6 fun11 insightful - 5 fun12 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

"I thought you were all about breaking out of boxes, so what does it matter if I'm queer or if I'm not?"

Run with it, queer theorists. Queer queer. Back to your roots!

Rape by deception: now targeted towards straight people. This is going to end well... by Neo_Shadow_Lurker in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Blanchard Bailey touches on this specific subject in The Boy Man who would be Queen.

many HSTS have a fetish on straight men

Not quite. They don't want to long-term partner with gay men on account of: if their partner is a gay man, then they're male, because gay men like men. They have a gender identity of female, so there's the conflict. Thus why they want straight men, because straight men want women, and they believe themselves to be or wish to be women.

Bailey never said that HSTS transition for the purpose of bedding straight men--that's something that the trifecta cabal accused him of. Dreger documented this; you can read her book Galileo's Middle Finger or her article in Archives of Sexual Behavior on it. You're brushing up on the trans Bailey-ad-hominem talking point.

"Gay men having a fetish for men." Really?

Same sort of reason why AGP pursue sex with men. They don't really care for the men, but having sex with men is something stereotypically female, so it's up for AGP grabs. Blanchard called that "pseudobisexuality." I don't think Blanchard was trying to work on a new typology in that regard (I'm sure he has one that he's not sharing,) just pointing out that he does not consider it to be bisexuality. In the case of HSTS, the men are the erotic locus, irrespective of the transsexualism, not an abstract concept of female that's validated by an activity of sex.

Well maybe 2015 you also identified as a lesbian at the time? We don't wanna be bigoted now, do we? :) by DickFreeBacon in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 24 insightful - 1 fun24 insightful - 0 fun25 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

AGP try and fashion themselves into not just women, but the sort of women they would like to date.

Sexuality means nothing anymore by DickFreeBacon in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's Dr. Joe Kort. I've read/listened to a bit of his work. He'll say anything to make his clients feel better, even if it's BS.

Sexuality means nothing anymore by DickFreeBacon in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's why I'm against grouping GAMPs with bissexual men: they're different in almost every way.

Hey we agree on something.

Sexuality means nothing anymore by DickFreeBacon in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Here we go again...

When a GAMP guy says he's bisexual, what he means is that he likes both male and female, in the same person.

Just the debate about GAMP/Bisexual is somewhat peculiar, seeing how we've already got the precise words for each already.

Why do LGB Alliance and LGN keep giving a platform to Julie Bindel, when she repeatedly makes homophobic and biphobic claims? by reluctant_commenter in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The sort of person with an agenda who's willing to twist reality to try and accomplish it?

Why do LGB Alliance and LGN keep giving a platform to Julie Bindel, when she repeatedly makes homophobic and biphobic claims? by reluctant_commenter in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Bindel's claims are not scientific ones. They're n=1 anecdotes of herself. That's fine, I'll engage with that.

"It can’t be that there is a difference in our brains, because it would have been discovered by now…"

A heightened desire for scientific knowledge does not produce it more quickly. Lack of scientific output does not predicate an answer. I appreciate Bindel's faith in those of us that practice the discipline, but we're not magicians. We still don't know what causes Alzheimer's disease, and believe me, plenty of smart people are working on it. Following Bindel's logic, clearly, Alzheimer's ...can't be that there is a difference in our brains...

How many lives has Judith Butler ruined? by JulienMayfair in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well the internet let people with these interests to anonymously congregate. So it did play that role. E.g.: search: "I'm a man but I wish I were a woman." Find yourself on some BBS...

This is an explanation I've also heard regarding sadomasochistic communities in the US--they tend to be nerdy. They love fantasy board games, and there's a fair bit of people who make their living with technology.

So, as it goes, they say, the nerds with an SM interest were the first to be able to congregate in meatspace and do SM, because they had the means with the internet to find like-minded persons before networked computing was available to others less technologically gifted or inclined. This supposedly set the cultural stage.

Could be true, but my preferred explanation is as above with regard to AGP. Whatever etiologically sets the groundwork is the same, and it results in an interest in SM and fantasy board games, generally speaking.

I agree with your point about the Internet and personas. In today's culture/climate, identity is everything. It's fetishized. People have been crafting all sorts of identities on the internet. Whether that's Facebook, or Instagram... the medium makes it nigh impossible to see the reality, so the falsehood does not crumble. They're chasing the fashion of the month.

I think people are bored and lacking meaning--another outcome of technology, in general.

How many lives has Judith Butler ruined? by JulienMayfair in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Wilchins helped created a movement in internet tech that supportive of gender ideology, which is part of why companies like Google and Twitter are so pro-trans.

Nobody has really explored the link between AGP and profession, but there has been a lot of casual observation from reputable people about how well AGP and technology get on. Probably having to do with... whatever makes someone AGP also inclines them to be interested in computers, which are very much mechanistic things--an interest typical of males. Also, activists classes love professions having to do with "journalism" or other platforms of thought--because they can tell you what to think.

Just ask Chelsea Manning about her very female-typical behavior:





The Burden of Autogynephilia | with Lisa Shupe. Our liberated culture itself refuses to acknowledge that aspects of sexuality can be harmful. Shupe is telling us how hard it is to live with a fetish because fetishes destroy relationships by Chipit in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)


There's two entries in the DSM-V paraphilia section. One for not one of the eight specifically called out, and also one for "this person has a paraphilia that we don't have a name for."

Obviously I'm a proponent for Blanchard's larger-encompassing idea of autogynephilia replacing the transvestic entry. You can see how that's too narrow to encompass Shupe.

It's negligent of the clinicians Shupe was dealing with to only look at the eight. A cursory search of the Internet readily reveals the existence of more than eight paraphilias.

The specific call-outs have to do with frequency and use for the legal system. Listing every paraphilia would not be a worthwhile exercise. I think the clinicians probably just didn't give a damn.

Obviously Shupe is in the paraphilic disorder camp. From the interview, I agree with Shupe's assessment of treatment. Stabilization with sex-drive reducing medication, psychotherapy, with the goal of trying to reduce or eliminate the medical treatment due to the consequences of yanking the endrocrine system around. It's not good.

Shupe seems idealistic that he can eliminate the paraphilia with conversion therapy. The outlook on that, to me, is very grim. I think he's got a few options: orchiectomy, life-long sex-drive reduction, or psychotherapy that ideally would allow him to healthily integrate his sexuality into his life. Given the history, the latter does not seem viable.

Shupe is interesting. I need to look into him some more, why he had this "aha" moment wrt. autogynephilia. If you only look at the microcosm of the individual, well, there are transsexuals who don't believe in AGP and they're much happier than Shupe is. You'll never be able to disabuse Shupe of the concept of AGP at this point, and IMHO it would be highly unethical to do so. People who have been mislead, yanked around, lied to, etc., and think they discover the real truth (Shupe has) will never let go of it.

Shupe mentioned borderline personality disorder and this history screams BPD. I'd certainly treat for that. This is probably the comorbidity that's really kicking his ass. I view BPD as a contraindication to treating for "trans" but that's a whole new topic...

Ultimately, physicians and psychotherapists in the United States do not receive training in sex psychology. I regard this as a problem, on many accounts, not just paraphilia, and agree with Shupe.

This highlights an existing problem in the USA with medical care: doctors are more like technicians. They're punished for thinking on their own. They also think the training they receive in med school is sufficient for their entire career. This is a problem across many professions in the US.

Sudden onset vagina mania - the hottest fad in gaybrodom by Chunkeeguy in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Weird. Likes the vulva but feels inconvenienced by the rest of the woman it's attached to?

Either a all-too-common FTM karma-whoring post (probably) or OP's got some bisexual inclinations to deal with.

How the Guardian became the Pravda of the trans movement by Chunkeeguy in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't understand how any rights movement that takes itself seriously wouldn't try to identify and exclude the interlopers. (The anti-social men, who have no gender issues, who take advantage of self-ID and legally become whatever sex they claim in the moment. Who's sexual perversion is entertained with and by non-consenting adults?)

Here, the pro-trans people have blindly taken onboard the guy who has a significant criminal history of the very thing he's accused of, well before any facts really surfaced.

Puts cynical hat on tight. Unless the people trying to champion Wi-Spa-guy are of the same ilk. A common theme. Abusers don't want protections. Abusers want to abuse.

I know, I know, I'm painting with a broad brush, but what gives? Any rational trans-movement would have cast this man to the wolves... everyone should be wanting his head (I certainly want him in front of a court,) but some people seem to think he's some sort of anti-fascist hero (looking at you, Judith Butler.) Do you even have a clue what "fascism" is? Or is this some Derridian twisting of words?

"Antifa" was one of the big "protest groups" who showed up on multiple occasions outside of Wi spa. How is beating people in the streets anti-fascism? Is that sexual sadism? It's a sexuality topic, after all. Long, hard look in the mirror, guys. (Pun not intended.)

The Truth about Autogynephilia. Women’s attire was not the true object of such a man’s affections, he concluded: rather, the clothes were the means whereby a man gave life to that object, namely himself in female form. “Autogynephilia” means love of oneself as a woman. by Chipit in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sorry, I have a raging headache, but also wanted to reply promptly, so I'll necessarily keep it terse.

I don't think classical or operant conditioning is a sufficient explanation to make somebody a transsexual: loose their job, family, undergo painful, expensive medical procedures; or even in extreme cases self-amputate their testicles, scrotum, and penis.

If conditioning explanations for paraphilia work, then we should be able to use conditioning for classical sexual orientation conversion therapy. People have tried it, often with sincere effort; does not work.

The Truth about Autogynephilia. Women’s attire was not the true object of such a man’s affections, he concluded: rather, the clothes were the means whereby a man gave life to that object, namely himself in female form. “Autogynephilia” means love of oneself as a woman. by Chipit in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

they want full blown females, but with dicks.

That's gyneandromorphophilia, attraction to "chicks-with-dicks," generally speaking, not autogynephilia.

Interesting thing I saw on /r/MTF: Somebody, who wasn't yet versed in the things you cannot say gave a textbook anecdote of their own autogynephilia and of course were questioning their own "transness." Some people from elsewhere swooped in and informed the poster that it was AGP and also, "just a fetish."

Here's the kicker. The poster, for whom AGP is more complex than a peculiar way or aid to obtain sexual gratification (most people's framing of "just a fetish,") then paid no heed to the people telling him that it was just that: a mere fetish. That complexity is a sexual axis, a romantic axis, and a companionate one to boot.

In the linked article, Philip was six years old when he tossed a coin into a fountain, wishing to be a girl. That's well before puberty. (Interesting things can happen when a child is integrating and trying to solve deep-seated desires, and take those thought processes through to adulthood--oft unexamined--when they have more cognitive capacity.)

Also consequent to that: Assuming I'm wrong, if it's just a fetish, then I think it is safe to say that at six years old, Philip was a fetishist.

I really don't think there is a thing as "just a fetish." I think there are different degrees of paraphilia you might find in a person. To a lesser extent of paraphilia, people can successfully "other" that part of their sexuality and pack it away into some conceptualization of the popular formation of "fetish" and convince themselves they're "normal." I also see complex identity formation processes insofar as how people decide whether or not or even how to integrate atypical sexual interests into their sexual identity. (Or even what constitutes atypical sexual interests, homosexuality included in that division.)

This isn't to eliminate a meaningful distinction between typical and atypical, just to highlight that the underlying nature of the atypicality is the same underlying nature of the typicality. It's not of a different character of desire, just different locus. Women "out there" vs the woman "inside." Same desire.

Either way, AGP isn't going back in the box. But you can see how the approach detailed above isn't really helping.

Meanwhile, in TQ+ America.. by Chunkeeguy in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Glenn Greenwald has been lambasting David and HRC:


Gender Ideology 101: The origins by JoeyJoeJoe in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, but they take that and run away with it.

Gender Ideology 101: The origins by JoeyJoeJoe in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Shupe is fascinating because he went back to ID'ing as male and was not at all happy about the process. "...petition filed by Shupe described the sex designation of non-binary as 'psychologically harmful legal fiction.'" and "He said that his original motivation for transition was autogynephilia and that he was experiencing symptoms of psychosis when he sought a non-binary sex marker."

Queer Theory backbone: Butler, etc. What they and Money have in common is social construction. Some things are of course socially constructed, but some people think that more things can be explained by social construction than the reality. Some people go so far as to say everything is socially constructed. These are usually people with a prior activist agenda, because social construction can't stand in the way of an activist agenda, where essentialism can.

Tangential actors, like Gayle Rubin. People more directly involved like Leslie Feinberg.

All this stuff takes a lot of time to unwind and (try to) come up with a genealogy of. It could probably be a life's work. The role that the feminisms played, etc.

Pop quiz: How many of you have heard of Dr John Money? (no spoilers please) by JoeyJoeJoe in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Money? Oh yeah.

WTF is wrong with people? How very dare they! by Chunkeeguy in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

These numbers are looser than the last study I read (we've probably all seen it) that very few people want to date trans.

Trans people: Look. Your pool is smaller. Such is life. Irrespective of etiology, ideology, etc. you've been dealt a hand, now you have to play it. This is the case for homosexual people as well--a smaller pool. But you don't see them taking to twitter and lamenting over it. Shaming people, demanding sex, having a fit, etc. Get a grip.

Study: Genetic patterns offer clues to evolution of homosexuality by Shales123 in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's funny, I feel like when most people hear "environmental" they don't think of conditions in the womb, they think of like, bullying at school or something.

It depends who you're talking to. If someone says "environmental," ask them to define that. Different disciplines use that word to mean different things. The sciences are just as guilty of ambiguity with their words. It took me a little while to unravel that environment to the neuroendocrinologist is... well... everything since inception.

Ah, interesting! And this is all regarding women with CAH, right? Wow.

Well CAH is one oddity that gives us the locus of insight into the phenomena. Theorizing from the margins, not the majority phenomena. If everyone were heterosexual, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Bi vs homo is under-theorized and under-studied.

Creating a bi space whitout the TQ+ invading it seems impossible (And I feel like sht about wanting one) by [deleted] in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

we're supposed to be the ones that do not care about people's genitals and so on

So this is true of me, but I need people to be... like, functional adults in touch with reality. Excuse me while I go draft up a new pride flag. Adult-in-touch-with-reality-o-sexual. That's hot.

am not willing to deal with someone who thinks they're NB

Amen. Had my sights on this nice masculine bisexual woman. Enter lockdown. Now she's NB. Dodged that bullet.

Where lesbian and gay people can't help their attraction of the same-sex, I shouldn't care that much about...

Welcome to the grind of not being monosexual. They've got it easier in some regards. Not in the grand scheme of things, no, being homo is harder, but being bi is just... different.

Kinsey did pluisexuals a dirty modeling us on a continuum of het-to-homo. Bisexuality is its own thing. It is its own experience. Neither this nor that.

Creating a bi space whitout the TQ+ invading it seems impossible (And I feel like sht about wanting one) by [deleted] in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 9 insightful - 11 fun9 insightful - 10 fun10 insightful - 11 fun -  (0 children)

The drama though.

Study: Genetic patterns offer clues to evolution of homosexuality by Shales123 in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This comes from animal studies where we perform surgeries on them, or flood them with sex hormone at various stages. In humans, congenital adrenal hyperplasia in females gives us a very good clue.

Ultimately, look at the development of the primary sexual characteristics. Genetics works up until a point. The presence and lack of of the SRY gene on the Y chromosome causes the undifferentiated gonads to turn into testes and ovaries, respectively. These, in turn create several horomones, of note sex hormones, and it is the sex hormones that then cause tissue differentiation into the two sets of sex organs. Formation of the penis, scrotum / vulva, vagina, cervix, uterus, etc are keyed entirely off sex hormone (and others made by the differentiated gonads play a smaller role, such as Anti-Müllerian Hormone) as far as we are aware. This is called hormonal organization, and it's not a controversial subject until you get to... It appears to be one mechanism of homosexuality.

It stands to reason, that if sex hormones cause the primary sexual characteristics, that it would also hormonally influence the brain such that the later adult human would want to use their sex organs with the "correct," opposite set. It appears that there are different critical stages where these two developmental processes (sex organs, the brain) take place, such that you can get a mismatch. Boom! homosexual.

Now, we do understand this in 46XX CAH, but in terms of non-CAH male and female non-heterosexuality wrt hormonal organization, we don't know. There are other periods during the developmental phase to adulthood that sex hormones are turned on. E.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25012863/ and also Adrenarche, long before Gonadarchy takes place (puberty.)

Many rocks to look under, not much funding.

Study: Genetic patterns offer clues to evolution of homosexuality by Shales123 in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

GWA studies ongoing, e.g.:


It's way too early to call anything, but we do find genetic links. Now, what that gene(s) mechanically does, we don't know. Correlation, causation, and all that. You're probably going to find yourself in a situation where a gay person is more likely to have the gene than not, but not everyone who has the gene is a homosexual. Nor do all homosexuals have the gene(s.)

One thing to keep in mind is how they operationalize "sexual orientation." Often, they're looking at behavior in these sorts of studies: "Have you had a volitional same-sex encounter?" "Yes/no." (I hang orientation off desire, not behavior. Reductio ad absurdum: someone who has never had sex is asexual.)

This one in particular also talks about trait openness and sensation-seeking, so yes, you can very well have people who are heterosexual but will try anything once, and as far as the study goes, they're not heterosexual. sigh.

So, still a lot to be desired.

Keep in mind though, it's not just genetics: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/26/12787

It's likely more like this, if you're a visual person: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fabulmajd.us%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F09%2Fswiss-cheese-model-1024x532.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

I agree with /u/PatsyStone though, if we ever get our hands on ways to influence orientation, expect people to try and use them. Things that people have done recently notwithstanding: surrogate mothers to bypass the fraternal birth order effect, diethylstilbestrol for neonatal 46XX w/ CAH, etc.

People are doing things today, already. At least those two examples have efficacy. Parents do attempt to get their GNC children to "man up" in the case of boys, etc.

So, we're kinda already there.

My unpopular opinion by [deleted] in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd add exclusive paraphilia to the list. People who find their sexual interests in things other than sex (in both senses: others that are male/female and the activity.) They correctly surmise how het/homo/bi works, realize they're not that, and go with the only other available option. People also like to deny that they have atypical sexuality for the obvious reasons.

Something like 20% of MTF trans are asexual-identified. These are probably the stronger cases of AGP.

How many of your friends have transitioned? by justagaydude123 in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Started a job in tech with with a MTF who had transitioned several years prior, eventually became friends with her. This was... eight years ago, when I didn't know anything about trans. A generally quiet individual who keeps to herself. Intelligent. AGP. Mental health issues. Nothing clinical outside of depression, which has been severe at times, but she's barely been keeping it together her entire life. Late transitioner--40's.

Sort of like a very smart, slightly unstable person, having a rough life history--you know the sort, with AGP sprinkles on top. I think the pre- and post- transition AGP has impeded her from forming meaningful romantic relationships and this is one of her most salient issues. She has this erotic ideal of "woman" floating out there, but it's always out of grasp. The late transition didn't help, and her motivation for finding women "out there" had competition for the woman "inside." Still does. Being a peculiar individual also isn't helping.

Alan Stratton: The 'Gender Supremacist' Threat to the Progressive Alliance 1/3. by GatitoMalo in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

entirely unrelated things and concepts in with us happens IMO because we are still seen as a lesser strand of equality

Well for ethnic minorities, they look like one. For women, they're women. Etc. For LGB... people of all walks of life. Harder to gatekeep. Sometimes it's really obvious, most of of the time not. Interesting how transitioned people do stand out in this regard, more like traditional minority groups.

You hit the nail on the head. There's sexual phenomena out there wider than LGB, but there's only one bucket people know of: LGBTQ+.

Alan Stratton: The 'Gender Supremacist' Threat to the Progressive Alliance 1/3. by GatitoMalo in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well as to the transsexuals being LGB, yes, at least the homosexual ones (HSTS). The autogynephiles have always been around and I've seen a smattering of them throughout recent history (and going back farther as well,) more or less rubbing shoulders with HSTS. Not speaking of the last decade or so. But the HSTS' approach is still to trans the gay away. Can't really blame them for it when it's childhood onset GD that persists, that's not under their volitional control. It's a question of whether HSTS should be friends and allies of LGB or in the same initialism as one happy family. I'm inclined to the former. Recall that homosexuality isn't in the DSM or ICD, but GD is; it will likely stay that way for the foreseeable future, and this isn't the result of the powers-that-be being a bunch of ignorant yahoos about it.

Or put it another way, if childhood-onset GD was the only kind of trans that existed, would you want to retain "T" in the initialism? It's the only one I think it's reasonable to have a conversation about, the rest of it is a "no" from me.

Alan Stratton: The 'Gender Supremacist' Threat to the Progressive Alliance 1/3. by GatitoMalo in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, I just don't get it either. Gender ideology and homosexuality are not compatible. Even a decade back, the idea of transwhatever was still largely incompatible. I can't reconcile past trans with past or present gay rights. Sure can't reconcile the modern trans movement. I think these people just didn't have the numbers nor clout back then for anyone to care. Lesson learned.

Curious what you guys think of this LGB Alliance tweet, removed by Twitter. by reluctant_commenter in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

your point is a logical one

¯_ (ツ)_/¯

Logic and rationality let me navigate the world without going completely insane. They're very necessary tools to me and my style of cognition. I lean on them pretty heavily.

free speech, and values tolerance of different opinions while condemning violence

Couldn't agree more. It's amazing how this topic especially (gender ideology) has been framed that any dissent is bigotry. It's very authoritarian. They clearly are not armed with much to have others accept their ideology and politics, we know this, so it seems to me they've fallen back on strong-arming. This does not seem like a good strategy for long-term success, especially since the eventual swing back is really going to hit them hard in the backside. This unfortunately smacks of the mental disorder side of the topic, where they're just not in touch with reality. Not the "I have GD and transitioning is a treatment for it, and I'll always be my birth sex" crowd, but the "I literally am the opposite sex" crowd. Getting through to these people is difficult. At the end of the day, we all have to live with each other, and authoritarianism is not the answer to that. Neither is re-organizing our societies around the needs or wants of a small minority.

Shakes fist at sky Damn Enlightenment value systems.

If we could just wrap people back into Enlightenment values, we wouldn't even need to talk about LGBTQ+, it would just sort itself out. Here, we're staring down the specter of postmodern neo-Marxism.

LGBTQ+ in some sense is a proxy issue.

Curious what you guys think of this LGB Alliance tweet, removed by Twitter. by reluctant_commenter in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I hate to say it but, it would be hard to completely destroy all "let's be one big umbrella!" sentiment..

One approach I can see is that people who are presently "allies" of LGBTQ+ get recognized as more of what they generally are: friends. Then, you chop it up into LGB, TQ (the gender crowd, paraphilia-motivated or no,) and the paraphilias that can be acted on with consenting adults. So three groups, roughly. Then, these groups could potentially be "allies" to each other, in the same way that the United States and the Soviet Union were allies in WWII, but they certainly were not friends.

It respects the distinction that already exists between the groups, and sometimes they can come together on a shared issue, and I do believe they have some shared issues.

I think this would be an improvement. I'm not sure exactly what my ideal would be for all this, let alone how to usher it all in. At the end of the day, none of these three groups are going anywhere, and they're always going to be advocating for themselves. They're not going back into the proverbial box any time soon, so I'm thinking... just control the chaos. I certainly want to avoid the screw-ups from one group taking everyone else down with them.

It's like the results of an anti-trust lawsuit. Break it up.

your long comments lmao.

Thanks. =)

Now as I'm writing I'm wondering whether "identity tourism" is perhaps the least-talked-about powerful element in all this madness.

Yeah, it's there, we all know it, but we don't talk about it as such. I wonder, what else is another phenomena of identity tourism that this could be compared and contrasted with? To make that conceptual shift that this recent stuff is merely that in people's minds. Seems like a bit of pernicious human behavior that's baked in. It's just a shame that today there are adults in the wings, who should know better, more than ready to give medical treatments to children. Kids who used to g through a goth or punk phase could just chuck their old clothing, all-black makeup, etc.

I hate to say it but, it would be hard to completely destroy all "let's be one big umbrella!" sentiment...

I'm scratching my head why it's proving so difficult. If one sits down, and looks at the philosophical take of the gay rights movement in the USA, then looks at the philosophical take of gender ideology in the USA, it's plainly obvious that these are not compatible systems of thought. They're actually antithetical to each other. It really is that simple.

There are a lot of currents at play that are trying to put everyone into the same camp, even if I can't quite put my finger on all of them.

Curious what you guys think of this LGB Alliance tweet, removed by Twitter. by reluctant_commenter in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Guess I have to bite the ethical bullet, because I eat animals--pretty obscene things can happen to them such that I am able to do so--and I wear their hides on my feet. My wallet is made of leather, as well. In this vein, I don't think animals should be killed except for providing food and/or ending their suffering, and we have an imperative to use as much of them as possible. As well as their humane treatment until they end up on our dinner plates.

Vegans have the moral high ground here, I do not. I am, however, healthier. (Naturalistic fallacy, anybody?)

So maybe not the best paraphilia to frame the issue with regards to LGBTQ+, because most of us are not saints as far as agricultural animals are concerned.

What if I have sex with my dinner before I eat it? Seeing how it's already dead? Is that wrong? Why? a priori Weird indeed, but give me an objective moral argument. We find ourselves yet again, back in moral arguments of yesteryear. Slippery slopes, etc.

Back to the topic at hand. (And if you can't deal with these sorts of issues, how can one sort out the rest? It's an issue of framework.)

Can LGB ever be decoupled in the mind of the lay person from anything that's not heterosexual? Defined here as coitus with opposite-sex, adult, phenotypically normal, consenting partners. (So, no, sex with opposite-sex farm animals isn't heterosexual. No, zoophiles, it isn't. Sorry, not sorry.)

Decoupling? To an extent, yes. However, I do see a strong trend to treat things as either heterosexual or "other." That's the framing. Look around. Het or other. Tell me I'm wrong. The "LGBTQ+" community.

You can beat your head against this and lose, or, there's another approach.

Have the parties advocate for themselves. Give them the oxygen, or in some cases, the rope with which they can hang themselves with. When someone says they're a zoophile? That is a sexuality. That is their sexual orientation, if it's their most salient sexual feature. (In a technical sense, this is very much the case. It's only in the sociopolitics that it gets muddled.) Don't have them hide behind the "+," let them go their own way, casting off LGB.

Let them develop their own sense of community, of belonging. Encourage them. You can try and kick them out of LGB, yes, but you'll have better luck if you also advocate for them to associate with their alternative, despite not being onboard with it. Carrot and stick.

I know. You know. The common person? they don't know. That's the target demographic here.

And to the TQ+ folks reading this, if the gay rights movement falls, you fall. How and when did societal attitudes change such that you enjoy your current sexual freedoms? Best try to not screw that up. It's not a sure thing. You're not springboarding off a concrete locus; it's quite tentative.

To no one's surprise, creator of the "lesbian masterdoc" comes out as bi. by MilkTea in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

She's so... young... to be writing the go-to-hey-read-this treatise... and how long has it been around for already?

Tommy Dorfman Would Like to Clarify (that’s he’s a tim) by Rag3 in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ooof. I can tell this Tommy Dorfman is classically homosexual just by looking at his face, I don't even need to see him act on video. Plenty of historical evidence that he's just gay on the interwebs, as well.


"Dorfman pivoted to his own queer experience to explain his reasoning: 'I feel like as a gay person there's an ownership to that word.'"

A victim to gender ideology.

Where are the straight-identifying women in relationships with trans men/trans-identifying females? by yousaythosethings in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I had a new feral cat coming around terrorizing my already spayed and neutered ferals, so I trapped the new one, had him neutered, and problem solved. Still a shit of an evil cat, but he's not instigating fights any more.

My pain condensed for amusement by julesburm1891 in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But that's why it was awarded.

Lesbian in the middle of straight girl friends - wanted to cry by oofreesouloo in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 23 insightful - 1 fun23 insightful - 0 fun24 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

One of these days you're going to find yourself in the same situation, but when people turn to you to ask about guys, you'll just be able to casually remark, "Oh, me? I'm a lesbian." You'll get there.

Still won't help with 80% of the conversation being taken up talking about men, but as people get older, they gossip about this sort of thing less, often because they pair up.

Meanwhile, if you want to avoid these conversations with other women, make sure there's a guy who fancies women present.

Was your main concern being found out, or was it about trying to fit in? Not fit in insofar as being straight, but just trying to have a relatable friend group. That's kind of the same thing, but I think there's a nuance in there.

Definitely get yourself some friends right of Kinsey 0, the farther along, the better. My understanding of university LGBT/GSA groups is that they're taken over by the TQ crowd. Maybe your situation is different, but keep your guard up there. Also, beware the false intimacy of a shared Kinsey number. I've been burned there, where it's like, oh, this person and I share a sexuality, cool, they must understand all my struggles. Toxic people can be anywhere.

Learn how to clock people, and don't be afraid to give off some subtle flags yourself.

Conservative media The Daily Wire runs article about elementary school children being given access to sexually complicit content at school -- and adds a rainbow flag as its article image by reluctant_commenter in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 14 insightful - 8 fun14 insightful - 7 fun15 insightful - 8 fun -  (0 children)

Guess the rainbow flag represents anything that's not regular monogamous, heterosexual, no-sex-before-marriage to the Daily Wire, which takes a very Judeo-Christian worldview. I don't think Shapiro or Walsh are ever going to be cheering on gay rights. Daily Wire appears to be doing very well as a media enterprise, at a time when other American outlets like CNN are suffering. Could be the underdog adoption of the Internet, baked into the business model. I don't know how well it appeals to the secular people though.

The app tells you who the nearest homosexuals are.

Sorry, but I'm cracking up.

Only women like these truly understand the nature of being lesbian by Chunkeeguy in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I was wondering why this was posted here until I got to the last sentence and I think I now understand how OP screwed this up so badly.

I don't really need people implying any and all AFABs attracted to women as the only valid lesbians

AMABs attracted to women are heterosexual males <--- this is what they don't want. They have to be "lesbian" in order to not be dudes. I think this is it. It's not just them framing their attraction from the locus of their gender identity and abusing language, as it appears on the surface. Instead, it's about the validation of their gender identity. They're not really talking about their attractions.

"Lesbian" isn't just who they like, as "woman" is the erotic target for AGP. Being "lesbian" is important, because only women can be lesbians. If they're a lesbian, they're a woman.

This gets really tricky because in order to understand what lesbian is--and how it could appeal to them--you have to really, deep down, throw away the gender woo woo, understand that lesbian is a homosexual woman-born-woman. Whilst pretending in a different corner of your brain that that's applicable to yourself when it obviously isn't the case.

I know I mentioned cognitive dissonance on a different thread, but this is such a perfect example.

Festinger argued that some people would inevitably resolve dissonance by blindly believing whatever they wanted to believe.

And it's from here that you probably get "TWAW," if you predicate that before reading OP's post, it makes sense.

Gaslight harder... by DickFreeBacon in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The cognitive dissonance...

Gaslight harder... by DickFreeBacon in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Okay, so eventually these people are going to look around and realize it's just a bunch of dudes, and then "lesbian" will be un-cool again? Identity fetishism is inherently self-defeating, because it's about the identity, not the reality. Maybe they're propping this whole thing up with the porn category? The whole thing about "lesbian" porn, insofar as the male fantasy goes, is that the women are actually bisexual.

Sunday Social - open chat! by TumbleweedFireflies in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I'll be driving down the road in my car, put my hand on my right thigh, and be like... oh god, where are my keys?!

A reminder that the long awaited book "Trans" by Helen Joyce is released today. by millicentfawcett in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I, USA, have purchased it from Amazon UK. Paid 10 GBP in shipping, but the intro looks good and and it's a topic I'm passionate about (go figure.) I should get it no later than two weeks out. Better to get a copy committed to me before the loons here in the states figure out what's in it. =)

What does “woke” or “wokeness” mean to you and how would you explain that to an intelligent woke gay friend who you were trying to convince it poses a problem for the gay community? by yousaythosethings in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They take an emphasis on social construction, often to the extreme. It is only in this fashion that they can supposedly master the universe. Material reality must be ignored, because how could you usher in your halcyon future if there are immutable things in your way?

Some Discussion Questions for You Guys by Horror-Swordfish in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

So you want a paper that links hormonal organization of the brain, during neonatal development, and GID?

From that paper's conclusion:

Our data show that current sexual orientation is not only predicted from the degree of prenatal androgen exposure as indicated by the CAH-severity classification, but in addi- tion also from the degree of masculinization of gender- related behavior during childhood.

They go on,

The latter variable could reflect variable brain responsiveness to prenatal androgens as well as postnatal psychosocial influences, provided retrospective reporting bias can be ruled out. This study does not provide an opportunity to decide between these options.

So there's a putative mechanism for you. In terms of childhood-onset GD, homosexuality is heavily implicated.

It all makes logical sense, but if you want a paper sampling circulating hormones during all stages of neonatal development longitudinally put up against GD, you're probably not going to get that.

This study did looked at cross-gender association:

At the end of the imagery section, the participant was asked about the frequency with which they saw themselves as ‘‘a person of the opposite sex’’ in their erotic imagery, sepa- rately for the past 12 months and lifetime (since puberty, excluding the past 12 months). As Table 7 shows, all groups except SV included some women with such experience.

But more specifically, they were looking at overall gender-nonconformity, which is implicated in childhood GD. Right?

And there's citations to get you started, like

Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L., Gruen, R. S., New, M. I., Bell, J. J., Morishima, A., Shimshi, M., et al. (1996). Gender change from female to male in classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Hormones and Behavior, 30, 319–332.

Some Discussion Questions for You Guys by Horror-Swordfish in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

You're not going to be able to understand trans if you lump all the etiologies together into "just trans" and try and treat them as a homogeneous group, but the activists will love you if you do.

Some Discussion Questions for You Guys by Horror-Swordfish in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

DOI 10.1007/s10508-007-9265-1


Some Discussion Questions for You Guys by Horror-Swordfish in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well you've found a particularly sane corner of Reddit...

Yes, I think that we can look at the USA and the UK and historically assess that the TQ+ stuff didn't come until after gay marriage. In part due to the normal people packing up their activism and going home once the majority goal of full citizenship was accomplished. In part due to activist organizations like Stonewall and HRC needing to keep the lights on and the money flowing. Your points #1 and #2.

So yeah, the social conservatives were correct in their assumed outcome. It was a slippery slope, but I don't think they understood that it would work in this fashion. Correct outcome, incorrect reasoning for it. Now, the concern I have with regard to them is an inability to see the difference between the two camps of people. Those that just want to live their lives and those that are activists who will never be satisfied. That's an important distinction I would consider when evaluating social movements. Conservativeism is essentially a desire for things to remain static, if you reach an agreement with them that there is a Mission Accomplished step, you'll get a lot farther with support.

Gay 2.0 (TQ+) is not the same thing as gay 1.0, but the TQ+ crowd wants to bolt itself to the success of 1.0 and pretend to be the same thing. This much is obvious. The gay rights movement did not create the TQ+, they've been around for a while, but it did give them a framework. A framework with historical success, which TQ+ are in large part ignoring, because trans activism is not about living your own life in peace and tolerance, it's about forcing others to participate, say things that are untrue, robbing people of their livelihoods, etc.

As far as mental disorder goes, that's a philosophical problem, and one that it's easy and compelling to move the goal posts to get the desired outcome. What constitutes "clinically significant distress" anyhow? Where does that distress come from? Society? Internal to the individual?

But I see your point... will I look back 40 years down the line and think, gee, I can't believe I thought trans was a mental disorder? What though is the distinction between having a mental disorder and our attitudes around mental disorder though? Major depressive disorder is a mental disorder, and many people suffer from it. It's called depression, colloquially. We're quite sympathetic to it, because experiencing grief and loss is part of the normal human condition. Everyone can relate.

Unfortunately, the treatment we have available for the various etiologies of transsexualism--affirmation is one approach that may be appropriate, if you're only looking at the microcosm of the individual. Especially with regard to childhood-onset GD. You can find men with autogynephilia that fully understand they have a paraphilia that makes them motivated to become a facsimile of their erotic ideal, and that they are indeed men. You can also find children who learn about transsexuals from television and see their own path forward, cementing the idea in their heads.

That does not mean that affirmation approaches should be all-encompassing, such as sports, bathrooms, etc. It's very undemocratic to rearrange our entire society for a minority. I think there's a healthy balance, but don't ask trans activists about what a good compromise is, they don't understand the concept.

If I'm being cynical, homosexuality would not have been removed from the DSM if there was a "treatment" for it. Trans... trans we can "treat" with drugs so I don't see it coming out any time soon.

It's a question to me of whether or not you can have success getting the person to identify with their birth sex. Some cases yes, other cases no. If you can, then that's going to lead to the best life for the person. If you can't, then affirmation might be the only thing that improves their lives, but it's not going to be a great life in the overall. Trans isn't beautiful, like the activists say it is.

I don't view affirmation as discarding it as a mental disorder. I think of affirmation as one option as treatment for mental disorder. "Yes, you have major depressive disorder." "Reeeee! No I'm a depressive! It's my identity!" It's a weird way to treat, I'll give you that though, it's like telling schizophrenics that the voices in their head are indeed real.

Of course I can rope this into the DSM and homosexuality insofar as how the mental profession stigmatizing homosexuality is a cause of distress and draw the parallel to trans. Which some activists do, but they're between a rock-and-a-hard-place in terms of medical insurance vs stigma.

I don't think being in the DSM is all that stigmatizing, I think it's societal attitudes. E.g. what I mentioned about depression.

I think that perhaps further etiological understanding of homosexuality, paraphilia, and childhood-onset GD might blow this entire discussion up again. E.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-012-9900-3 That's many years down the line though.

Ultimately, the salient confluence of trans and mental disorder, to me, is false belief. In some circumstances, you can dissuade them from the false belief, but that won't necessarily change their situation.

What does “woke” or “wokeness” mean to you and how would you explain that to an intelligent woke gay friend who you were trying to convince it poses a problem for the gay community? by yousaythosethings in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)


Basically post-modern, neo-Marxist systems. That's wokeness. The rabbit hole runs deep, and it's a yugeeee intellectual effort to try and understand it (and I don't claim to have a great handle on it, myself.) It's a very insidious philosophical system, and it's no surprise to me that people fall for it. Certain demographics seem more susceptible to it than others. It's an activist philosophy, so it's not something that somebody concocted and then other people took it up because they felt it was worthwhile. It's deliberately being plied onto people by activists with agendas. It has invaded the academy.

I think this topic is important to DropTheT, because that's where a lot of this madness is coming from.

I won't argue with Judith Butler types (Queer Theory, which shares a genealogy with the rest of the woke stuff) the same way I won't argue with flat-earthers. Earth's round, get over it. Sex ain't socially constructed, looking at you, Judith Butler.

To give an incredibly abbreviated account of neo-Marxism, the proletariat didn't rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie, so the Marxists went back to the drawing board. Instead of reasoning... hm, maybe we're wrong about this whole Marxist thing, they decided, no, we're right, and there must be other things at play. They decided that there are power structures subtly and perniciously embedded into society, even going as far as to say that the language we have available to even talk about maybe guillotining people is inherently oppressive. Neo-Marxists are looking for oppression in places it does not exist, because they're not getting the activist outcomes they desire. It's a cognitive dissonance.

There's a huge focus on language... hmmm where have we seen this? Changing the meanings of words, like "man," or "woman," or "homosexual," or ...

Bi men in gay spaces – examples of constant homophobia, misinformation and undermining our definitions by lazy-summer-god in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

So not Reddit.

My lesbian friend is now trans and is trying to convince me that I am too by SillyGoose in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Intuitive Retrospective", where you look at data, and try to figure out through your "lived experience" what you think the cause of the correlations are

Yeah that's neo-Marxist thought. "Different ways of knowing." https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-ways-of-knowing/

I bring it up, because critical social justice is, to a degree, behind the trans movement. Or, they're at least cut from the same cloth.

The "lesbian" dream - uhhh… by Rag3 in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Autism. Exaggerated emotions. Predictable plots. Etc.

Bi men in gay spaces – examples of constant homophobia, misinformation and undermining our definitions by lazy-summer-god in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 23 insightful - 3 fun23 insightful - 2 fun24 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Three-quarters of your examples have to do with trans or trans-themed threads. I'm not disagreeing with your general premise, but trans is making everybody cRaZy! Would this problem be evident if it were not for trans? Would lesbian subreddits still exist in a meaningful way if there was not the trans contingent? Would Reddit have women-only subreddits still if it was not for trans?

I know AskGayBros is supposedly some sort of last bastion of sanity on Reddit, but it's still Reddit. Also, AGB is the only place where any meaningful discussion is taking place, probably causing the preponderance of bisexuals. Go look at /r/bisexual and see it's all silly memes.

B in LG spaces dilemma by lazy-summer-god in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Late to the party as well. Lots of people here regard /r/AGB as being the last sane space on Reddit. We might be too emotionally attached to it and it's crazier than we think it is. Now we're downstream of Reddit shenanigans and bickering amongst ourselves. There's that toxicity you mentioned. Just kinda rubs off, don't it?

Bisexuals, bisexuals, bisexuals... by PatsyStone in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I've been around here for seven months. There's the occasional tiff, but it always goes back to business as normal.

B in LG spaces dilemma by lazy-summer-god in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How could one determine which they are? It all seems very nebulous.

I agree! How one could even go about determining if this hypothetical two-type typology has any basis or even is meaningful, I have no good ideas. What I do know is that I've heard lots of bisexual people place themselves into either of the two types. The I'm-bisexual-because-I-like-vulvas-and-penises, or the I'm-bisexual-because-I-care-not. So, I've collected the anecdotes and there's my hypothesis.

Per your bolded question:

That's my question. Is this purely conceptual, or is it a meaningful difference such that there are indeed different sorts of bisexual people. Which, if true, could mean that bisexuality, or plurisexuality (the technical term for the opposite of monosexuality) is fundamentally different. Where bisexuality isn't a continuum from heterosexual to homosexual but could, in some cases, better be understood as its own stand-alone thing, even though you could quantify it.

To rope it into the larger topic, so it's not just me being overly academic, this could explain different bisexual attitudes towards trans people.

The Autogynephilia Files part II - Life Through a Distorted Linds by distortedlinds in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 9 insightful - 12 fun9 insightful - 11 fun10 insightful - 12 fun -  (0 children)

Really should be the "autogynefiles."

B in LG spaces dilemma by lazy-summer-god in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

attracted regardless of sex

I could make a two-type typology of bisexuality. One type experiences attraction on the basis of sex. For the other type, sex isn't an organizing force in their sexuality. If sex is equal, then sex isn't part of the equation anymore, and attraction is more salient on other dimensions. Now we're in TRA rhetoric territory.

That's a nuanced take and the differences could be hard to elucidate. Point being, are all bisexuals really the same thing? Because this bit of the thread assumes that's the case.

B in LG spaces dilemma by lazy-summer-god in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Gay rights movement: a sociopolitical unit of Gays and later on Gays and Lesbians.

Bisexual in a country with real homophobia: straight.

LGB: a political unit, not a social unit.

LGBTQ+: definitely not a social unit.

How a lesbian can believe she is a gay trans man... - GNC Centric by usehername in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My statistical take on it is that paraphilia in women is most commonly: masochism, sadism (and I think the DSM-V backs me up on this, esp. wrt. masochism) followed by the less-understood phenomena of autohomoeroticism and/or autoandrophiliia. After that, it seems to drop off very steeply as far as women go. The thing about paraphilia, is that if you have one, you're likely to have another. I would not be surprised if there was a significant cohort of women out there having these three.

There also seems to be a significant uptick of transsexualism in the various sadomasochistic subcultures recently, but this is all just anecdotal, I'm not running any studies on it. Just casual observation. IDK if that's an increased interest in SM, or just that SM is one of the largest, accepting cultures out there and these people just want a place to hang their hat. Transsexual identity might be the gatekeeper for the lesser paraphilic interests an individual may have.

Another thing about SM is it needs a stimulus to thrive on. In the way that a normal, straight man stranded on a desert island is deprived of women, he will have to rely on fantasy. But when the sadomasochist stumbles upon a real or perceived power differential, then it piques their interest. That's like breasts to the straight man. The real thing is better than fantasy.

How a lesbian can believe she is a gay trans man... - GNC Centric by usehername in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The theme of beauty and the beast. Not specifically the Disney film.

How a lesbian can believe she is a gay trans man... - GNC Centric by usehername in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well when I say masochism, I'm not talking "rough sex," or experimentation with common BDSM themes, which half of the USA population has some life-time prevalence of. I'd also omit things that are a trend, like "choking," which is a really stupid thing to be doing because of the risks. It's a grey area between rough sex and masochism, for sure though. E.g. I'm thinking along the lines of being turned on when someone orders you to change your wind shield wipers, or else. Then failing to do so, being punished for it, and finding the entire scenario to be highly erotic. Real anecdote. Bisexual woman though. It's this nature of masochism that is way more common in bisexual and homosexual women, and men, then it is in heterosexual women.

"Looking for Trans Only" men on Grindr. by Criticallacitirc in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

that's just a man in makeup

Yeah, that's included in GAMP, conceptually. Blanchard collected an anecdote from a man who's ideal erotic target was a person who was completely indistinguishable from a natal woman, but who at one point in the past had been a man man. This falls into the same bucket. Human sexuality can be directed towards abstract concepts.

I mean, this isn't set in stone, this taxonomy. IIRC Joey has dated women and trans women, not men. So I wouldn't lump him into bi, since bi is generally understood to be people into men and women. Sure, you can stuff it into bi, if you want to, but I think it's worthwhile to keep a typology that would indicate the qualitatively different sorts of things then all being labeled bisexual. Especially with regard to the particular fascination that some men have towards trans women. Other things come into play when developing the taxonomy, like masochism. There's a concept called "forced bi" where the male partner is made to have sex with another man at the behest of a dominant woman and finds this activity to be erotic, yet would never pursue men outside of the sadomasochistic context--which is the erotic locus. I think reducing conceptualization of what goes on in fringe phenomena to what sets of natural genitalia people have will elide important aspects. It also has societal impacts, since the guys marching in the pride parade in full pup-play outfits are all equipped with natural dicks and share a common interest in them, but I'd like to focus on the pup-play thing there.

I don't think Joey is a closeted bisexual or gay man, in the classic sense. Now we can disagree exactly what Joey has going on, but it's obvious that something's up with him that's not the norm. He's got his face plastered all over YouTube. His whole family knows that he's engaged to Blaire, It does not stand up to scrutiny to me that he's closeted in any fashion. If he is, that's some pretty wild formulation of internalized homophobia.

In Joey's case, I'm inclined to believe his self-report of GAMP.

I think your thought process touches something along the lines of that GAMP isn't a phenomena at all and men who are interested in trans women, generally, are just plain old bisexuals, albeit very screwed up ones, in terms of etiology and desire?

"I… HAVE…. AUTOGYNEPHILIA!!!" by GatitoMalo in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

AGP ain't going nowhere anytime soon, but at least there are some people out there with the wherewithal to do their research, toss out the BS, and maybe come to a healthy understanding and incorporation of their sexuality. Good job, @jack_meditates.

How a lesbian can believe she is a gay trans man... - GNC Centric by usehername in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I got nothing. Just an observation of popular themes for erotic material.

How a lesbian can believe she is a gay trans man... - GNC Centric by usehername in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Dangerous bad boys that can be tamed through love.

Both: What do you think causes people to develop sexual paraphilias? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]GatitoMalo 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's erotic mis-learning or erotic learning. We don't know that much about it. Its evolutionary foundation in our species is probably due to concealed ovulation.

This is an excellent paper that touches on the topic a little bit:


How a lesbian can believe she is a gay trans man... - GNC Centric by usehername in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm thinking a specific class including Christian Grey and vampires, for instance. Not K-pop.

Both: What do you think causes people to develop sexual paraphilias? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]GatitoMalo 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Gotta re-frame your locus of "sexual" from genitalia and sex and nekkedness to paraphilia. It's non-sexual to the non-paraphile.

I've also collected many anecdotes from people with sadomasochistic interests that Disney films were their first recognition that the concept in the film was interesting to them.

How a lesbian can believe she is a gay trans man... - GNC Centric by usehername in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know. Me and others have seen the pattern but nobody knows what to make of it. It's intuition that tells me it's an epiphenomenon. It's also something I've only really seen in works of fiction, and I haven't exactly collected any real-life anecdotes. There is a dichotomy of what fiction appeals to women, and what they tend to seek from partners.

How a lesbian can believe she is a gay trans man... - GNC Centric by usehername in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think so.

How a lesbian can believe she is a gay trans man... - GNC Centric by usehername in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Almost all research on masochism is done on males--aside from those who claim it's natural in women--despite the fact that masochism is way more common in women.

What! That's ridiculous, lol. I actually laughed out loud in disbelief...

That does appear to be the case. Paraphilia in women gravitates to masochism. Masochism, in this sense, revolves around interpersonal power, and there are a variety of concepts that exemplify that. It's usually not beatings.

The really interesting thing about paraphilia in women is that it does not seem very prevalent in heterosexual-identified women. Bisexual and homosexual identified women seem to lead the pack. There are a few hypothesis on this.

It may strike most people as non-intuitive but it does seem that studying paraphilias would be super helpful for the LGB community... since the paraphilia-dominated TQ+ movement is currently silencing and shaming LGB people.

I could not agree more.

How a lesbian can believe she is a gay trans man... - GNC Centric by usehername in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There are common themes in literature that women tend to find erotic. Beast-taming is probably the short way to put it. 50 shades? Beauty and the beast? This does however strike me as an epiphenomena.

How a lesbian can believe she is a gay trans man... - GNC Centric by usehername in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)


I've been trying to unravel why the medium for this is strictly artistic. Perhaps it's just too niche, but it's been suggested to me that autism plays a role insofar as the anime genre uses exaggerated emotions, which are apparently more readily understood, yaoi or not.

Article on political lesbians by LesbianInExile in LGBDropTheT

[–]GatitoMalo 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I feel like Bindel is conflating "born that way" as a non-discrimination instrument, in the way that an ethnic minority may use it, with that of a temporal clause to aetiology of sexual orientation. All the while hanging the concept of sexual orientation off of recent behavior and/or sociopolitics, and not physiologically-originated desire.

She does not want to give oxygen to the idea that the nature of her desire, and the nature of desire of other women who share the label are wildly different.